driving

According to Wikipedia (not my usual first source for details, but useful on occasion), that phrase refers to something that might seem simple at a first look but will take more time and effort to complete than expected.

This applies to numerous issues in today’s America. We get caught up in one or two details that we think make our point, and ignore other details – or, more important, the big picture – which might prove that we really don’t know what we’re talking about.

I’m becoming more of a big picture person these days. Details are important, of course, but only as they fit into the grand scheme of things.

Let’s start with a couple of Facebook pass-along one-liners that I often ignore, but these two got my attention this time.

Adultery

This post, by an ordained minister, defends homosexuality by saying that it’s not in the Ten Commandments, while adultery is.

My response:

Homosexuality is one form of adultery. Sex outside traditional marriage. You’re right, though; we’ve too often ignored the “traditional” adultery.

That generated a couple of responses:

Yes, traditional marriage such as marrying two of your cousins who happen to be sisters (Genesis 29), or a rape victim being required to marry their aggressor (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).

I have always thought it a very curious obsession, especially when read within the context of the chapters that surround it (e.g. no shellfish, no mixed garment clothing … I routinely break lots of those, but I don’t see anyone demonizing me for my impure behavior.

Given the objectively far more serious things humans can do to one another (e.g. murder, assault), it just seems like small potatoes for flawed humans to judge other humans so harshly based on what they deem are “bigger” flaws.

Here’s another one:

Don’t wear clothing of mixed cotton and wool! Leviticus 19:19

As long as we’re looking at “the context of the chapters that surround it,” let’s show that both of these posts do not do that. The Genesis 29 passage refers to Jacob marrying Leah and then Rachel. That wasn’t his first choice, but he followed the rules set by the girls’ father. The man married off his own daughters that way. And in the Genesis time period, when there weren’t very many people around, marrying cousins was not unusual.

The man buying the bride he raped is not “traditional” marriage, nor does the Bible call it that.

The Leviticus passage is even sillier. The quote is just one part of one verse that starts, “You shall not let your animals breed with a different kind …” My version of the Bible ends that verse this way: “… nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials.” (The wool and linen, not cotton, passage is actually Deuteronomy 22:9-11, which proves the person who generated that post didn’t do his research.)

The rule against wearing different types of fabric was not a moral law. There is nothing inherently wrong with weaving linen and wool together. In fact, the ephod of the high priest was made of linen and dyed thread (Exodus 28:6-8; 39:4-5). The dyed thread would have been made of wool. This fact is probably the key to understanding the prohibition. The ephod of the high priest was the only garment that could be woven of linen and wool. No one else was allowed to have such a garment. Apparently, this rule was to place some distance between the high priest and the people, with the ultimate purpose of reminding Israel of how holy God truly is.

Read the entire Bible before posting such comments. God supports “traditional” marriage, in many places in the Bible, for a reason. We can pick and choose a verse to say just about anything we want it to. But put it in the context of the entire Scriptures, and you’ll understand what it really says.

And God’s holiness is a major theme throughout both Testaments.

There are other big-picture topics that we miss as well.

The Cleveland Cavaliers

The Cavaliers had a 7-10 won-loss record in March, then lost their last four games of the season in April and gave up the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference to the Boston Celtics. Those of us worried about details were afraid that the Cavs weren’t ready for the playoffs as they limped into the post-season.

Not to worry. The players themselves all along were thinking big picture: repeating as NBA champions. They didn’t care, really, about their March record.

So far, they haven’t lost a playoff game yet this year. They swept Indiana and then Toronto, winning eight consecutive games, most of them easily,

Will they win the NBA championship again this year? Time will tell. Their big-picture focus has them prepared to do just that.

Retirement savings

Nearly half of families in the United States have no retirement savings at all, the Economic Policy Institute says.

The median for all families in the U.S., which means half have more and half have less, is $5,000 in retirement savings.

However, according to the EPI, the mean retirement savings of all families is $95,776. That means the rich are getting richer and the poor are staying poor, because many of those who have retirement savings have a nice nest egg.

We are caught up in an instant-gratification society: I want it, and I want it now. Many of us aren’t willing to delay gratification. Some of us can’t, certainly, but some of us can and just don’t.

We let money control us, rather than taking control of our bank accounts.

More of us need to think long-term. We need to see the big picture.

Driving habits

I encounter this every day. If we would set our alarms five minutes earlier every morning, we might not be in such a hurry to get to work in the morning. Or to hurry back from lunch. Or to hurry … wherever we’re going.

Notice the rest of us, and get where you’re going. Just get there. And let me get to my destination too. I shouldn’t have to slam on my brakes because you can’t control your vehicle.

Here’s another one: I wish we understood that when we’re turning left at a major intersection and we block traffic when the light turns red, we’re causing gridlock. If we truly paid attention to traffic patterns, we’d understand that we’re not getting where we need to go any faster by blocking traffic. Indeed, we’re slowing others – and ourselves – down. Really.

Look up. Pay attention. Observe red as well as green. Things will go smoother. I promise.

Again: Just get there.

Obama’s legacy

I see posts that say former President Obama was the best president this country has ever had. I’ve seen others that say he was the worst.

Please. Legacies aren’t determined five months after the president leaves office. It takes time, possibly decades, for history to show how a president affected the country.

Obama was the first black president; that’s obvious and historic. What he did, however, will take time to evaluate. That’s true with every president.

The long view

It takes time to read the entire Bible, to win a pro sports championship, to save enough for retirement, to determine a legacy. The devil really is in the details.

Winning long-term is so worth it. Even if I can’t see the results today. Look up. Think big. Think long.

Driving 65 mph on a 60 mph four-lane divided highway the other day, a SUV zoomed by me in the passing lane as if I was standing still.

That’s not unusual, unfortunately. But for once, I saw justice. Five minutes later, there the SUV was, parked on the side of the road with a police car, lights flashing, behind it. I twiddled on by, saying a silent prayer of thanks for the officer doing his job.

I think outside the box. I know what the rules are, and how to break them. I also know when not to break them.

Such as speeding 20 mph over the posted limit. That’s putting his life in danger, and mine.

So, what rules do I break?

As a driver, I frequently roll through stop signs. I’m constantly checking traffic in all directions and obviously if the coast is not clear, I stop. But if no one else is around, why waste gasoline by stopping? I slow down, but I roll through.

My wife doesn’t like that. I frequently do it anyway.

As a journalist, I fudged deadlines. If a reporter was cranking out a crime story as deadline was approaching, I waited, my heart often pounding but silently. Or, just as often, the reporter turned the story in on time, then came to me as I was finishing laying out the page and said he had an update – perhaps a crime suspect was just arrested.

Write fast, I said. My fingers fly on the computer keyboard when they need to. I’d get the updated story in the paper, with a new headline if necessary.

Every so often my boss lectured me about missing the deadline. I never apologized because I knew there was a fudge factor in there. The pressroom liked to have that flex time, but occasionally I tapped into it.

My job was to get the latest news into the paper, whatever it took. This was pre-Internet days, when newspapers were the primary source of community information.

As a copy editor, I became an “expert” on a variety of subjects. We had to communicate knowledgeably and in everyday language about taxes, school budgets, road construction, why companies hired or fired people, politics at all levels, and every other issue that came up.

If a reporter wrote a story that I didn’t understand, I assumed our readers wouldn’t either, and I would either re-write the story in clearer language or ask the reporter for clarification. This was my job.

I’m not a college professor, researching one topic for years. I learn about new topics nearly every day. I can research a subject for a couple of hours and write knowledgeably about it.

As a journalist, I never claimed to write the final word on any subject. No newspaper writer or editor does. The purpose of the newspaper was – and still is (or should be) – to get people talking. Not to provide all the answers, or even the “right” answer. To get you to think about an issue, and maybe do something about it.

I’ve tried to write this blog that way. When I express a viewpoint, I never claim to have the final word. If you disagree with me, that’s fine. Let’s talk about it. Respectfully. With dignity.

That’s what America has lost with the decline of newspapers and the rise of social media. Respect and dignity.

United Airlines is taking it on the chin and many other places over the forced removal of a passenger from a flight on Sunday. But the only person who actually broke any laws in that unfortunate scenario was the bloodied passenger.

Journalists understand that there’s more than one side to every story. Our editor in Saginaw, Mich., would ask for another viewpoint in just about every story we wrote. He drove us crazy. When will he ever be satisfied with a story? He rarely was.

We grumbled behind his back all the time, but because he drove us so hard, we were good. Very good. The public did use our articles as talking points. Community leaders were held accountable.

I came across the following sentiment recently:

“I’ve said this a million times before … I’ll say it a million times again before I die and I’ll be right every time.”

~ a Facebook friend

A journalist would never say this. Neither will I.

People say and do things for a reason, even things you or I don’t agree with. Get inside their skin and ask why.

Like nearly all journalists, I’m skeptical about a lot of things. I ask a lot of questions. With an open mind.

Sure, I have a bias. Everyone does. I see life through a certain lens; perhaps you see life through a different lens. That’s fine. We’re different. Not better or worse, just different. We can complement each other, if we both want that.

Here’s another sentiment I found not too long ago:

“Humility is terribly elusive, because if focused on too much it will turn into pride, its very opposite. Humility is a virtue to be highly sought but never claimed, because once claimed it is forfeited.”

~ John MacArthur

Because journalists are constantly learning, asking questions, seeking answers, we have a humility that we never talk about.

Thanks for listening. I look forward to hearing from you, today and in the future.

I have social media friends who are politically left and others on the right, and everywhere in between. I like that. Sometimes, you make me uncomfortable. That’s a good thing. I’ll challenge your position, and you have the right to challenge mine.

But again, let’s do it with respect. Argue my viewpoint, not my right to have that viewpoint. Stick to the issue. Don’t make it personal.

There are at least two sides to every story. No exceptions.

That’s how we separate “fake news” from what’s real. By talking it out.